Oklahoma comprehensive water plan 2011 update. Technical memorandum : conjunctive water management in Oklahoma and other states

Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
2011 Update
Technical Memorandum:
Conjunctive Water Management in
Oklahoma and Other States
November 2010
Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the
United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
A i
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
Conjunctive Management in Oklahoma and Other States ............................................. 3
Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................ 3
Texas ................................................................................................................................... 6
Kansas ................................................................................................................................ 7
Nebraska ............................................................................................................................. 8
Oregon ................................................................................................................................ 9
Colorado ............................................................................................................................ 10
Utah ................................................................................................................................... 12
California ........................................................................................................................... 13
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 14
References ............................................................................................................................. 16
Appendices
Appendix A Alternate Definitions of Conjunctive Management
A ii
Tables
1 Comparison of Surveyed States' Conjunctive Use Programs .................................. 15
Acronyms
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
AWS Available Water Supply
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BWS Basin Water Supply
CDWR California Department of Natural Resources
cfs cubic feet per second
DNR Division of Natural Resources
DWR Department of Water Resources
ESA Endangered Species Act
HB House Bill
IGUCAs Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
IMP Integrated Management Process
LB Legislative Bill
NRDs Natural Resource Districts
OARs Oregon Administrative Rules
OCWP Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
ODWR Oregon Department of Natural Resources
OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
SB Senate Bill
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TM Technical Memorandum
TWDB Texas Water Development Board
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
A 1
Introduction
Through development of a major update to the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
(OCWP), the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is taking an unprecedented look
at Oklahoma's water resources and supplies needed to meet the state's needs through
2060 and beyond. Included are analyses of water demands and the physical supply
availability, permitting, water quality, and infrastructure needs over the 50-year planning
period.
Participants in OCWP's public policy development
process have identified the conjunctive
management of Oklahoma's surface water and
groundwater supplies as an important topic in
meeting Oklahomans' current and future water
needs. The final report from the 2010 Town Hall
meeting (Oklahoma Academy 2010) included the
following regarding conjunctive water
management:
There was no consensus as to the
conjunctive use and management of
groundwater and surface water resources.
Better coordination and management of the
interrelation of surface and groundwater
resources is essential. Our surface water
allocation system (prior appropriation) does
not recognize groundwater/surface water
interactions. These interactions can be a
significant source of problems limiting the
effective management of water.
Increased public awareness of the connection between groundwater and surface
water is essential. In recognition of our stewardship role with respect to our state's
natural resources, we must better understand and manage the very real connection
between the use of those resources while balancing the right of a beneficial,
consumptive use of those resources.
A comprehensive, independent hydrologic study should be undertaken to identify how
the two systems are related and better understand how to effectively manage the two.
Any such study should also include a determination of the quantity and the quality of
groundwater, including levels of contamination, the maximum annual yields of
aquifers, the impact of precipitation levels, the impact of pumping groundwater on the
appropriation of surface water, and the effect of the depletion of surface water on
groundwater. Long-term hydrological studies are also needed to predict impacts on
use and recharge.
The OCWP Water Town Hall in May 2010
included discussion of conjunctive water
management in Oklahoma.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 2
Coordinating management of groundwater and surface water raises concerns about
private property rights. In developing new policies for the coordinated management of
surface water and groundwater, the rights and needs of private property owners,
municipalities, and water districts must be balanced with the need for additional
regulation in this area.
One approach to a coordinated management system is the development of regional
basin organizations to monitor and manage groundwater resources. In preserving
surface water resources, more reservoirs could be constructed for storage
opportunities to reduce the need for groundwater withdrawal and increase
groundwater recharge. In developing a local management system it should be
recognized that any interactive management system is appropriate to each region and
may not be necessary statewide. Incentives should be available to private property
owners to encourage participation in any coordinated management system.
This technical memorandum (TM) provides a summary of conjunctive water management
activities in Oklahoma and other selected states. This information is intended to support
further consideration of processes to evaluate and prioritize any possible areas where
further investigations (both hydrological and administrative) may need to occur in
Oklahoma.
A definition of conjunctive water management is provided so that the reader has an
understanding of the term and its use in this TM. Conjunctive water use is also a term
used to describe conjunctive water management and the terms for the purposes of this
TM are considered equivalent. Conjunctive water management is the management of
hydraulically connected surface water and groundwater resources such that the total
benefits of integrated management exceed the sum of the benefits that would result from
an independent management of each water resource. Conjunctive management may be
for one or more of the following purposes:
 Maximize beneficial use of water
 Reduce or prevent adverse effects of using a source
 Provide a sustainable and reliable water supply
 Protect environmental water supplies in the surface water system
 Protect spring flows discharging from an aquifer
 Protect senior water rights
 Use an aquifer for storage of surplus surface water and subsequent use (often
referred to as Aquifer Storage and Recovery or ASR)
There are multiple conjunctive management definitions and certainly other possible
purposes, but these are the major uses that have been identified in a survey of other
states. As there are multiple definitions of conjunctive management, the OWRB may want
to consider adopting or developing an Oklahoma specific-definition. Examples of
definitions used in other states and other contexts are provided in the Appendix to this TM.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 3
As indicated in the Town Hall report excerpt above, Town Hall participants recognized the
ongoing interactions between surface and groundwater resources in Oklahoma, but did
not draw firm conclusions regarding management practices and administration of
supplies. A summary of the conjunctive management practices of several other plains and
western states is provided below.
Conjunctive Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
To provide background information for continued
dialogue, several other plains and western states
were surveyed regarding their conjunctive
management practices. Clearly, the physical and
administrative aspects of water resources are not
alike in any two states. However, this survey of
conjunctive management practices provides
foundational information for consideration in
dialogue regarding current and future conjunctive
use and management of Oklahoma's water
resources.
States were selected for surveys based in part on
their proximity to Oklahoma and relative similarity in
hydrologic conditions, but also to document a broad
range of approaches taken by other states.
Oklahoma's current practices are briefly documented
below, followed by a synopsis of approaches taken
by the water management authorities in the states of Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon,
Colorado, Utah, and California. Surveys were conducted using publicly-available
information sources augmented by direct communication with several states' water
management agencies. Several other states were evaluated for inclusion in this report
including Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In these states it was found that
conjunctive management was limited to the administration or regulation of wells for the
benefit of senior surface water rights, and therefore not discussed in detail in this report.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma water law requires any person who uses groundwater or water
from a stream, lake, or pond in Oklahoma for agricultural, industrial, public
water supply, and other non-domestic purposes to obtain a permit from the
OWRB. The water flowing in a stream is considered public water and can be
used by any person who obtains a permit for a non-domestic use. The permit
would be senior to permits issued on the stream at a later time. This is referred to as the
Doctrine of Prior Appropriation (first in time, first in right) that is used by many states in the
west to allocate and administer water rights.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 4
Groundwater is not considered public water in Oklahoma but belongs to the land surface
owner. A permit is required for any non-domestic use. Oklahoma law requires that the
OWRB issue the permit based on the maximum annual yield. The maximum annual yield is
based on a study of the groundwater basin that assumes a useful aquifer life of at least
20 years. The maximum annual yield is divided into an "equal proportionate share" for
each acre of land over the groundwater basin. If a groundwater basin has not been
studied yet, then the law provides for a temporary permit to be issued based in the
amount of 2 acre-feet (AF) per acre each year. Once an aquifer's maximum annual yield is
determined, the permit will be converted to a regular permit and the authorized amount
will be adjusted to the equal proportionate share.
With the exception of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer system, conjunctive management of
supplies is not mandated under Oklahoma water law. Among other issues, many Town Hall
participants voiced concerns over the potential of conjunctive management to infringe
upon property rights and existing water permits. These issues are now being highlighted as
OWRB implements the legislative directives of Senate Bill 288 in the Arbuckle-Simpson
basin. Conjunctive management in other regions and states (permitting, administration,
and enforcement) has in many cases been driven by conflicts between holders of water
rights or permits for supplies that were impacted by others' withdrawals from hydraulically
connected sources.
Clearly, the separate treatment of surface water and groundwater is not considered a form
of conjunctive management, even though the water resources may be hydraulically
connected and the uses of each can affect the other water resource. In other words, the
pumping of groundwater could have an effect on a stream if the aquifer and stream are
hydraulically connected. Likewise, the diversion of surface water could also have an effect
on the aquifer's long-term water supply.
Blaine Aquifer Recharge
Artificial recharge of the Blaine aquifer in Southwestern Oklahoma has been conducted
since the late 1960s. The Blaine aquifer is used for crop irrigation, but not for drinking
water due to high mineral content. Groundwater is obtained from cavities, solution
channels, and fractures in the Blaine formation. The Blaine aquifer experienced significant
decline of water levels due to irrigation withdrawals during the 1950s and 1960s. In
1983, OWRB, the Southwest Water and Soil Conservation District, and other partners
started the Blaine Gypsum Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project. At the time, the
district had 45 project recharge wells already in use, though the effectiveness of these
wells was not well studied. The project constructed and monitored five recharge wells. The
monitoring found that each recharge well could provide on average about half the water
supply used by an irrigation well (70 AF). The recharge wells provided a short-term
increase in water quality, where the Blaine aquifer is typically of poor quality. Long-term
effects on water quality were not studied. The district had constructed about 70 recharge
wells as of 1997.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 5
Artificial Recharge Legislative Work Group
In 2009 and 2010, the OCWP Aquifer Recharge Workgroup evaluated opportunities for
intentional conjunctive use in Oklahoma in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 1410 (2008).
The workgroup evaluated areas where surface water could be intentionally recharged into
aquifer formations, stored in those aquifers, then subsequently withdrawn for use as
supply and demand conditions warrant. The findings of that workgroup's efforts are
documented in the Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project Site Evaluation Final Report (OWRB
2010).
The OCWP Aquifer Recharge Workgroup concluded that intentional recharge and
conjunctive use has the potential to help increase the reliability of supplies in many areas,
and recommended a short-list of sites in Oklahoma for a possible future recharge
demonstration project.
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer
Oklahoma implemented a conjunctive water management policy associated with
legislation passed in 2003 (SB288). This legislation essentially imposed a moratorium on
any temporary permits to use groundwater for municipal or public water supply use
outside of any county that overlays in whole or in part a sensitive sole source groundwater
basin. This moratorium was to remain in effect until the OWRB conducts and completes a
hydrological study and approves a maximum annual yield that will ensure that any permit
for the removal of water from such a basin or subbasin will not reduce the natural flow of
water from springs or streams emanating from said basin or subbasin (SB288 2003).
SB288 also requires that a permit for the use of groundwater within the basin will not
likely degrade or interfere with springs or streams emanating from the aquifer. Currently,
this legislation has been applied to the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer, which is the only aquifer
in Oklahoma that has been declared a sole source groundwater basin.
The OWRB initiated a comprehensive study of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer in 2003 in
cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Oklahoma State University, and the University of Oklahoma. The study was completed in
December 2009 when the final report was submitted to the BOR. The study included the
development and calibration of a digital groundwater flow model to predict the impact of
various well pumping scenarios on stream and spring flow. The OWRB is using the study
results and model to develop a maximum annual yield that will not reduce the flow of
springs and streams emanating from the aquifer (Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study,
December 2009). The OWRB has established a website to provide a significant amount of
information about the study (http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/groundwater/
arbuckle_simpson/arbuckle_study.php#288).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 6
Texas
Texas does not directly have a conjunctive water management program for
surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater. It has been directed
by statute that the two state water management agencies—the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB)—be responsible for different areas of water resources in the
state. The TCEQ is responsible for the permitting of the use of surface water
and is required to consider the effects of a surface water application on
groundwater and groundwater recharge (Texas Water Code § 11.151).
In Texas, the right to use groundwater by the overlying land owner has long been
recognized as the "rule of capture" by a Texas Supreme Court case (Houston and Texas
Central Railroad Co. vs. East, 81 S.W. 279, Tex. 1904). This decision resulted in the
growth of groundwater use without any regulation or management until 1949, when the
Texas Legislature passed legislation to establish underground water reservoirs and for
creating groundwater conservation districts. Additional legislation was passed over the
years dealing with the management of groundwater. For example, a groundwater
conservation district was given the authority to permit the use of groundwater in its
district. Significant changes occurred in 2001, in SB2, where the TWDB was given the
responsibility to create groundwater management areas. As a result, the TWDB
established 16 groundwater management areas that encompassed the entire state for the
purpose of joint planning among groundwater conservation districts within a management
area (Mace et al. 2008).
In 2005, in House Bill (HB) 1763, the Legislature mandated joint planning among
groundwater conservation districts within a groundwater management area. The
groundwater conservation districts are required to meet at least annually to conduct joint
planning and to review groundwater management plans and accomplishments in the
groundwater management area. A key part of the joint planning is determining "desired
future conditions" that are used to calculate "managed available groundwater" values by
the TWDB. These conditions and values are used for regional water plans, groundwater
management plans, and permitting (Mace et al. 2008).
Desired future conditions are the desired, quantified conditions of groundwater resources
such as water levels, water quality, spring flows, or volumes at a specified time or times in
the future or in perpetuity. The groundwater conservation districts can choose to manage
their groundwater resources in such a way as to protect spring flow and baseflow to
streams (Mace et al. 2007). Once the groundwater conservation districts establish the
desired future conditions, they are required to forward this to the TWDB, who uses
groundwater availability models to determine "managed available groundwater." The
districts are required to report the managed available groundwater in their groundwater
management plans and to ensure that their groundwater plans contain goals and
objectives consistent with achieving the desired future conditions. The districts are
required to permit the use of groundwater, to the extent possible, up to the managed
available groundwater (Mace et al. 2008).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 7
There is one example in Texas where the interaction of groundwater and surface water
has been evaluated. This is the Edwards Aquifer, where spring discharges flow into the
Guadalupe River. A federal court order has been issued to protect endangered species in
the river from excessive groundwater pumping. In 2005, the TWDB and TCEQ used
groundwater and surface water models to evaluate different management scenarios
impacting both the aquifer and the river (Mace et al. 2007).
Kansas
Kansas has implemented conjunctive water management of surface water and
hydraulically connected groundwater in several ways, including protection of
senior water rights and protecting streamflows.
The Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR) conjunctively regulates surface water
rights and groundwater rights that appropriate water from a common source. A priority
number is assigned to each water right based on its date of use. A junior groundwater
right may be curtailed if it is impairing a senior surface right or a minimum desirable
streamflow. In practice, this is done only if such curtailment would not constitute a futile
call; that is, curtailing the junior water right would not result in a significant improvement
in water availability to a senior surface water right or a minimum desired streamflow gage
(Graves 2010).
When considering applications for water appropriation, the Kansas DWR generally limits
appropriations to the safe yield of a stream or aquifer. Safe yield means the long-term
sustainable yield of the source of supply, including hydraulically connected surface water
and groundwater (Kansas Administrative Regulations 5-1-1).
The Kansas Chief Engineer, Director of DWR, has authority under the Groundwater
Management District Act (K.S.A. 82a-1020 through 1040) to establish "Intensive
Groundwater Use Control Areas" (IGUCAs) when certain problems exist and when
corrective controls are necessary to protect the public interest. A number of IGUCAs have
been established in Kansas, most for the purpose of managing a groundwater source of
supply to many wells. A notable exception is the Walnut Creek IGUCA in south-central
Kansas that was established to address declining groundwater levels that in turn had
reduced streamflows. The intent of the IGUCA is to allow the aquifer to recharge to a level
where water levels are at or above the streambed elevation.
The key provisions of the order establishing the Walnut Creek IGUCA are as follows:
 Closed the area to further appropriations
 Required the installation of flow meters
 Required water users to file annual water use reports no later than March 1
 Set 5-year allocations
 Set the long-term sustainable yield at approximately 22,700 acre-feet per year (AFY)
 Used the period of 1985 to 1990 to establish the historical use allocated to senior
irrigation rights, with priorities prior to or equal to October 1, 1965
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 8
 Junior irrigation water rights with priorities junior to October 1, 1965 are assigned the
remaining amount of the sustainable yield of 22,700 AF; about 44 percent of the
seniors' allocations
The Chief Engineer may evaluate the information collected at 5-year intervals and make
adjustments to the corrective controls if needed to achieve the goals of the IGUCA (Walnut
Creek IGUCA).
Nebraska
Nebraska has a joint permitting process for surface water and groundwater,
with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitting the
use of surface water using the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation for regulating
surface water rights. Groundwater is permitted by local Natural Resource
Districts (NRDs) and the use of groundwater is controlled by the NRDs with
annual pumping allocations established for irrigation wells in a specific NRD. This joint
permitting process led to some conflicts resulting from interstate litigation on the
Republican River Compact and from other basins being over appropriated. In 2004,
Legislative Bill (LB) 962 was adopted by the Nebraska Legislature and reflects the
recognition that the state's water resources and use required more complex management.
The result is an Integrated Management Process (IMP) that called for a proactive
approach to management of the state's hydraulically connected groundwater and surface
water, providing for the economic viability, social and environmental health, safety, and
welfare of the river basin (Water Matters November 2009).
Under LB962, the DNR was required to make an over-appropriated determination for any
basin meeting specific criteria. The criteria include being subject to an interstate
cooperative agreement between three or more states, declaration by DNR of a moratorium
on the issuance of new surface water appropriations in the basin, and a request by DNR
that each NRD with jurisdiction in the affected basin either 1) close or continue in effect a
previously adopted closure of all or part of a basin to the issuance of additional water well
permits, or 2) temporarily suspend or continue in effect a temporary suspension on the
drilling of new water wells in the area. All of these criteria had to occur prior to July 16,
2004 to be in effect (Water Matters November 2009).
LB962 also required DNR to evaluate all basins annually and designate a basin fully
appropriated when the current uses of surface water and groundwater cause, or will in the
reasonably foreseeable future cause, the surface water supply to be insufficient to sustain
the beneficial purposes for which natural flow, storage, or instream flow appropriations
were granted. A basin may also be deemed fully appropriated if the reduction in
streamflow will cause noncompliance with an interstate compact or decree, other formal
state contracts or agreements, or applicable state or federal laws. Once a basin is
preliminarily determined to be fully appropriated, DNR places a stay on the construction of
all new water wells with the basin (Water Matters November 2009).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 9
When a basin is over appropriated or fully appropriated, the IMP is implemented. This
includes establishing a stakeholder group to consult with the DNR and NRDs providing
feedback and ideas. Goals and objectives are developed to give the IMP direction. An IMP
may include both regulatory and non-regulatory action items. A fully appropriated
determination does necessarily mean that existing users need to be regulated. An over
appropriated area or basin is required to develop an incremental plan to balance water
uses and supplies for an ultimate return to a fully appropriated level of uses.
An important component to the IMP is developing an understanding of the Basin Water
Supply (BWS) and the uses of that supply. The BWS is the streamflow that would occur
without the depletions caused by water uses in the basin. The BWS may need to be
adjusted for obligations that require a portion of the streamflow to flow downstream.
These obligations could be due to an interstate river compact or a river recovery plan
resulting from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The remaining water supply, referred to
as the Available Water Supply (AWS), is compared with depletions from existing uses to
determine if a reduction in water use is necessary to balance depletions with the AWS. The
IMP will develop goals and objectives and specific regulatory controls to carry them out
(Water Matters March 2010).
Oregon
Oregon has implemented conjunctive management of hydraulically
connected groundwater and surface water in order to protect senior water
rights and minimum streamflows. The Oregon Department of Water
Resources (ODWR) has promulgated rules to implement the conjunctive
management regulations and is published as the Oregon Administrative
Rules (OARs). The Division 9 Rules are titled "Groundwater Interference with
Surface Water" and apply to proposed and existing wells (OARs, Water Resources
Department, Division 9 Rules).
The Division 9 Rules apply to hydraulically connected groundwater and surface water
where there is the potential for substantial interference with surface water supplies. The
ODWR must make the determination that the groundwater is hydraulically connected. All
wells within one-quarter mile of a stream are presumed to be hydraulically connected.
All wells that produce water from a hydraulically connected aquifer shall be assumed to
have the potential to cause substantial interference with the surface water source, if the
existing or proposed groundwater appropriation is within one of the following categories:
1. The point of appropriation is within a horizontal distance less than one-quarter mile
from the stream; or
2. The rate of appropriation is greater than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) if the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream; or
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 10
3. The rate of appropriation is greater than 1 percent of the pertinent adopted minimum
perennial streamflow or instream water right with a senior priority date, or if the
discharge that is equaled or exceeded 80 percent of the time and the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream; or
4. The groundwater pumping, if continued for a period of 30 days, would result in a
stream depletion greater than 25 percent of the rate of appropriation, if the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream.
According to Barry Norris, Acting Director of Water Rights Division, ODWR, the above rules
were developed by a rules advisory committee that was made up of various interest
groups. The rules are therefore not necessarily scientifically based. Mr. Norris further
stated that there are areas in Oregon where ODWR routinely regulates junior priority wells
in favor of surface water rights or instream flows every summer (Norris 2010a).
Oregon has initiated a study in the Umatilla River basin to identify recharge areas where
water can be diverted and recharged into the underlying aquifer to offset the impacts of
existing well pumping. The water is diverted in the non-irrigation season or periods of high
streamflow when there is no demand for the water. The stream accretions from the
recharge would be used to offset the stream depletions from well pumping and thereby
minimize the amount well regulation that would be needed to protect senior water rights
(Norris 2010b).
Colorado
Colorado was one of the earlier states to implement conjunctive management of
hydraulically connected groundwater and surface water. The purpose of the
initial conjunctive management was to protect senior surface water rights while
maximizing beneficial use of water. This has expanded over time to include
artificial recharge of alluvial aquifers to offset the stream and aquifer depletions
caused by well pumping.
Colorado rewrote its water laws in 1969 to address complaints by senior surface water
rights that uncontrolled irrigation well development in the dry period of 1950 to 1963 had
caused stream depletions that were reducing the supply to senior surface water rights on
two major streams in eastern Colorado. These included the South Platte River with over
1,000,000 acres irrigated by surface and groundwater, and the Arkansas River with over
350,000 acres irrigated by surface water and groundwater.
The Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (Article 92 of Title 37 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes) required for the first time that all tributary wells (wells that
pump groundwater hydraulically connected to a stream or its alluvial aquifer) file for
adjudication of the well in the Division Water Court (created by the Act) by July 1, 1972.
The well would be assigned a priority based on the date of construction and placed into an
integrated tabulation of all tributary water rights both surface water and groundwater.
Surface water rights have been continuously adjudicated since the late 1880s and the
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 11
adjudicated well would be integrated with these water rights. Since most streams in
Colorado are over appropriated as a result of demands (calls) by senior surface water
rights dating to the later part of the 1800s, wells constructed in the 1950s and 1960s
would be very junior and not in priority, except in high stream flow conditions during the
peak of the snowmelt runoff season or during periods of high precipitation.
The Act required the State Engineer, who is also the Director of the DWR, to administer the
wells once adjudicated and to promulgate rules for the administration of the wells with the
recognition of the value of the wells to maximize the beneficial use of water but also
honoring the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
The Act created a new term in Colorado water law, Plan for Augmentation, that was
intended to assist groundwater users and the State Engineer with a mechanism to allow
junior alluvial wells to pump. A plan for augmentation is defined as a "a detailed program
which may be temporary or perpetual in duration, to increase the supply of water available
for beneficial use in a basin by the development of new or alternate points of diversion, by
a pooling of water resources, by water exchange projects, by providing substitute supplies
of water, by the development of new sources of water, or by any other appropriate means"
(CRS 37-92-103 (9)). The plans for augmentation that have been adjudicated include
wells pumping as alternate points of diversion to senior surface water rights, the release
of reservoir water to offset depletions caused by well pumping, the recharge of alluvial
aquifers using surface water available at times of no call (demand) to provide a
streamflow accretion credit to offset well pumping depletions, the use of waters imported
from another basin including return flows from an initial use such as municipal, and other
creative plans.
The key purpose of a plan for augmentation is to provide water at times the well depletion
is affecting a stream when the priority of the well is junior to the call. This is intended to
overcome the argument of well owners that curtailment of the well pumping did not
necessarily provide immediate relief to a senior call. In Colorado, a well cannot pump in an
over-appropriated basin unless a plan for augmentation is in place to offset delayed
depletions that will occur in the future at times when a call is on. If there is no call senior
to a well's priority, augmentation is not required. The State Engineer allows an exception
for a well within 100 feet of the stream that does not have a delayed depletion. This is
considered the same as a surface water diversion that can be administered in priority, and
a plan for augmentation is not required (Simpson 2006).
In the 1970s, the State Engineer advocated the use of existing canals on the South Platte
River to divert water at times of no call and outside the irrigation season into recharge
basins constructed for this purpose. Currently over 200,000 AF of water is recharged in an
average runoff year, and much less in a drought year. This recharged groundwater
provides stream accretions that are credited to various organizations implementing the
recharge programs and are used to offset well depletions in various plans for
augmentation (Simpson 2006).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 12
In the Arkansas River basin, recharge projects are not feasible since there is a year-round
demand for water related to either senior water rights or the Arkansas River Compact
approved in 1948. The Compact results in a demand for water with a priority of 1948
outside of the irrigation season.
During the severe drought of 2000 to 2006 in Colorado, some plans for augmentation
were not able to operate due to a lack of adequate water for augmentation because the
call period on the South Platte River increased from about 4 months per year to year-round.
This basically increased the amount of water needed by a factor of 3 and several
plans ceased to operate. As a result, about 2,000 irrigation wells were shut down by the
State Engineer in 2006 and about 100,000 acres dried up. These wells have not been
able to operate since that time due to the inability of irrigation interests to acquire
reasonably priced augmentation water. This has in large part been caused by increased
competition for water supplies in the basin resulting from rapid growth of the Front Range
population (Simpson 2006).
Utah
The State of Utah has included in its State Water Plan a section on "Conjunctive
Management of Surface and Groundwater in Utah." This section is a
comprehensive treatment of conjunctive management of water, with emphasis
on ASR. The elements of conjunctive water management identified in the plan
are:
 Use more surface water and less groundwater when surface water is available during
wet periods. (Wet periods include annual spring snowmelt runoff and consecutive
years of above normal precipitation.)
 Store unused surface water above ground and underground during dry periods.
 Take water out of surface and groundwater storage during dry periods. (Dry periods
include annual summer months and consecutive years of below-normal precipitation.)
 Use more groundwater during dry periods when insufficient surface water is available
in streams and reservoirs.
The report states that although conjunctive management projects do not always involve
storage of excess surface water underground, intentionally recharging aquifers when
water is available and recovering it when needed is a common and critical element of
most conjunctive management projects (Utah State Water Plan 2005).
The Utah State Engineer's Office has taken actions to address areas of declining
groundwater levels and has developed Groundwater Management Plans for 12 designated
areas of the state. The intent of these plans is to protect existing water rights, provide for
maximum beneficial use of water resources, and address other issues unique to a
particular groundwater basin. The Groundwater Management Plan typically includes
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 13
comparisons of the estimated natural recharge into the groundwater basin to natural
discharge and human withdrawals out of the basin. Groundwater basins with approved
water rights that exceed the amount of natural recharge physically available are
considered over-appropriated and are closed to new appropriations. About 27 percent of
Utah is closed to new appropriations. The closed area is along the Wasatch Front, the area
of high population in Utah (Utah State Water Plan 2005).
ASR projects most commonly include the use of spreading basins in the primary recharge
areas above the target aquifer and later withdrawing the water from locations in the
aquifer influenced by the recharge. The best locations for surface water spreading include
river deltas and at the mouth of the canyons near a water source of sufficient size. ASR
projects are subject to the regulatory requirements of the Groundwater Recharge and
Recovery Act adopted in 1991. The act requires the proponents of a project to obtain
permits for recharge of water and permits for the recovery of the water (Utah State Water
Plan 2005).
California
California is somewhat similar to Nebraska in that at the state agency level, only
the allocation and use of surface water is regulated by the state. In California,
this is accomplished by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
which is within the California Environmental Protection Agency. The SWRCB's
role is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the state while
allocating those waters to achieve optimum balance of beneficial uses.
Groundwater management and regulation, including permitting of water wells, is
a local function carried out by counties, municipalities, or water districts. Efforts
to regulate groundwater at the state level have been discouraged by the
Legislature several times in recent history.
However, the California State Water Plan does describe how conjunctive management of
water resources can be accomplished and the role the state can play in this effort. In
Chapter 8, "Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage," California State Water
Plan (Update 2009), California Department of Water Resources (CDWR),conjunctive
management is defined as the coordinated and planned use and management of both
surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of
water supplies in a region to meet various management objectives. One of the roles and
goals of the state through the CDWR is to strive for sustainable and reliable groundwater
supplies throughout the state. Groundwater plays an important role in meeting the water
needs of its water users by providing over 35 percent of the water demand or about
15 million AF of pumping per year. Conjunctive management is emerging as one of the
major water resources management tools to achieve this goal.
An example provided is the recharge of an aquifer with surface water when additional
surface supplies are available and affordable. A sustainable conjunctive management
program consists of several components that include investigating the groundwater
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 14
aquifer characteristics, estimating surface water and groundwater responses, and
appropriate monitoring of groundwater level and quality. The state's role includes
providing funding through grants and loans as well as technical assistance (California
State Water Plan, Update 2009, Chapter 8).
At the end of Chapter 8, fourteen recommendations are provided to improve conjunctive
management and groundwater storage in California that will not be restated in this report
but should be reviewed for applicability to future Oklahoma conjunctive water
management policy and actions.
Summary
As can be seen from the discussion above for the eight states, conjunctive management
of surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater varies significantly, ranging
from minimal implementation to very active programs. Conjunctive management is a
relatively recent activity often resulting from problems or conflicts becoming evident as
uses of the water resources in a river basin start to experience limitations or conflicts
resulting from some of the following:
 Declining streamflow as a result of groundwater uses causing depletions
 Declining groundwater levels resulting from excessive pumping
 Complaints by those with vested water rights or permits that junior diverters are
causing them injury (e.g., senior surface water rights impacted by groundwater
pumping)
 Interstate litigation between states over the administration of an interstate river
compact
 Demands for instream flows to address the needs of endangered species dependent
on the streamflow and imposed as a result of the federal ESA
 Desires for instream flows to provide for the needs of the environment or recreation
Often it has been specific legislation as identified for Oklahoma (SB288, 2003), Colorado
(Water Rights Determination and Administration Act, 1969) and Nebraska (LB962, 2004)
that resulted in a conjunctive water management program. The fact that the legislature of
a state determines conjunctive management to be an important public water policy makes
it even more enforceable by the state water agencies given the responsibility to implement
the legislation.
Table 1 provides a brief synopsis of some of the key features of conjunctive management
in the surveyed states.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 15
Table 1—Comparison of Surveyed States' Conjunctive Use Programs
Conjunctive Management
Criteria by State
Conjunctive Management is
not implemented in majority
of state or is limited to areas
with close proximity to a
stream
    
Conjunctive Management is
implemented in majority of
state
  
Groundwater and Surface
Water are permitted under
separate laws
   
Groundwater and Surface
Water are permitted under
the same laws
   
State agency has authority to
regulate wells for protection
of Senior
Surface Water Rights
   
Aquifer storage and recovery
is encouraged and
implemented
  
Conjunctive Management
includes efforts to provide for
sustainability of water
resources in the basin
 
As Oklahoma considers potential future conjunctive water management activities, it will be
important to have not only the support of water users but also the Legislature as programs
are implemented. Future dialogue could include discussion of options for conjunctive
management that include status quo methods and protocol, site-specific approaches such
as those taken for the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer (SB288), and statewide approaches. Key
issues will include the continued protection of property rights while providing reliable water
supplies to Oklahoma's water users.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 16
References
Blomquist, William A., Heikkila, Tanya A. and Schlager, Edella. (2001). Institutions and
Conjunctive Water Management Among Three Western States. Natural Resources Journal,
Vol. 41, No. 3. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=290745
Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 92 of Title 37, Water Rights Determination and
Administration.
Czarnecki, John B., Clark, Brian R., and Stanton, Gregory P. (2003). Conjunctive-Use
Optimization Model of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer of Southeastern
Arkansas. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4233.
Gershon, Michael A. (2003, July/August). The Recent Evolution of Texas Water Policy and
Law. Southwest Hydrology. Pages 24-25.
Glennon, Robert. (2003, July/August). High and Dry in the West: The Failure to Integrate
Management of Ground- and Surface-Water Resources. Southwest Hydrology.
Pages 12-13.
Graves, P. (2010, August 5). Kansas Division of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Idaho Administrative Code. Rules for Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground
Water Resources. Section 37.03.11.
Jehangir, Waqar A., Qureshi, Asad Sarwar, Ali, Nazim. (2002). Conjunctive Water
Management in the Rechna Doab: An Overview of Resources and Issues. Working Paper
48, Pakistan Country Series No. 13. International Water Management Institute.
Mace, R.E.; Austin, B.; Angle, E.S.; Batchelder, R. (2007, June). Texas Water Development
Board. "Surface Water and Groundwater-Together Again?". Eighth Annual Changing Face of
Water Rights in Texas, Texas Water Bar.
Mace, R.E.; Petrossian, Bradley, R.; Mullican, W. F.; Christian, L. (2008, May). Texas Water
Development Board. "A Streetcar Named Desired Future Conditions: The New
Groundwater Availability for Texas (Revised)". The Changing Face of Water Rights in Texas
2008, Texas Water Bar.
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. (2009, November). "The Integrated
Management Planning Process."Water Matters.
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. (2010, March). "Integrated Water
Management and the Basin Water Supply."Water Matters.
Norris, B. (2010a, July 6). Oregon Department of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Norris, B. (2010b, July 13). Oregon Department of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Water Resources, Division 9, Groundwater
Interference with Surface Water.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 17
Osborn, Noel I. (2009, December). Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study. Final Report to the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
OWRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). (2010, June). Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project
Site Evaluation Final Report.
Simpson, H. (2006, September). Colorado State Engineer, "History of Well Regulation,
South Platte River Basin."
Utah Division of Water Resources. (2005, July). Conjunctive Management of Surface and
Ground Water in Utah. Utah State Water Plan. Available at
http://www.water.utah.gov/waterplan
Utah State Water Plan. (2005, July). Division of Water Resources, "Conjunctive
Management of Surface and Groundwater in Utah."
Walnut Creek IGUCA, Kansas Department of Agriculture,
http://www.ksda.gov/appropriations/content/291/cid/1355
Water, Final Report, Oklahoma Academy. (2010, May). Town Hall Meeting.
A A-1
Appendix A
Alternate Definitions of Conjunctive
Management
Some examples of various definitions are provided below:
 "Conjunctive water use usually involves institutional agreements where an existing
groundwater user will curtail extractions during wet years in favor of a surface water
supply—thereby allowing the aquifer to naturally replenish" (California Water Plan).
 "Conjunctive water management is the use of multiple water resources (surface water
and groundwater) within a basin so that at the time of irrigation, adequate water of
acceptable quality is available at the farm" (Jehangir et al. 2002).
 "Conjunctive water management involves the coordinated use of ground and surface
water supplies. It aims to enhance overall water supplies and guard against drought"
(Blomquist et al. 2001).
 "Conjunctive management is "the coordinated and combined use of surface water and
ground water to better manage water supplies in order to meet growing needs" (Utah
Division of Water Resources 2005).
 "In Texas, the concept of conjunctive use was defined by the Legislature as 'the
combined use of groundwater and surface water sources that optimizes the beneficial
characteristics of each source'" (Gershon 2003).
 "In Idaho, conjunctive management is defined as the 'legal and hydrologic integration
of administration of the diversion and use of water under water rights from surface
and ground water sources, including areas having a common ground water supply'"
(Idaho Administrative Code).
 "Conjunctive use involves the withdrawal of both ground water and surface water.
Conjunctive-use optimization modeling is a technique that can be used to determine
maximum withdrawal rates from both surface water and ground water while meeting
constraints with respect to water levels and streamflow" (Czarnecki et al. 2003).
 "Conjunctive management aims to coordinate ground-and surface waters in order to
obtain the maximum economic benefits from both resources" (Glennon 2003).

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
2011 Update
Technical Memorandum:
Conjunctive Water Management in
Oklahoma and Other States
November 2010
Prepared by CDM under a cooperative agreement between the
United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
A i
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
Conjunctive Management in Oklahoma and Other States ............................................. 3
Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................ 3
Texas ................................................................................................................................... 6
Kansas ................................................................................................................................ 7
Nebraska ............................................................................................................................. 8
Oregon ................................................................................................................................ 9
Colorado ............................................................................................................................ 10
Utah ................................................................................................................................... 12
California ........................................................................................................................... 13
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 14
References ............................................................................................................................. 16
Appendices
Appendix A Alternate Definitions of Conjunctive Management
A ii
Tables
1 Comparison of Surveyed States' Conjunctive Use Programs .................................. 15
Acronyms
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
AWS Available Water Supply
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BWS Basin Water Supply
CDWR California Department of Natural Resources
cfs cubic feet per second
DNR Division of Natural Resources
DWR Department of Water Resources
ESA Endangered Species Act
HB House Bill
IGUCAs Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
IMP Integrated Management Process
LB Legislative Bill
NRDs Natural Resource Districts
OARs Oregon Administrative Rules
OCWP Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
ODWR Oregon Department of Natural Resources
OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
SB Senate Bill
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TM Technical Memorandum
TWDB Texas Water Development Board
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
A 1
Introduction
Through development of a major update to the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
(OCWP), the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) is taking an unprecedented look
at Oklahoma's water resources and supplies needed to meet the state's needs through
2060 and beyond. Included are analyses of water demands and the physical supply
availability, permitting, water quality, and infrastructure needs over the 50-year planning
period.
Participants in OCWP's public policy development
process have identified the conjunctive
management of Oklahoma's surface water and
groundwater supplies as an important topic in
meeting Oklahomans' current and future water
needs. The final report from the 2010 Town Hall
meeting (Oklahoma Academy 2010) included the
following regarding conjunctive water
management:
There was no consensus as to the
conjunctive use and management of
groundwater and surface water resources.
Better coordination and management of the
interrelation of surface and groundwater
resources is essential. Our surface water
allocation system (prior appropriation) does
not recognize groundwater/surface water
interactions. These interactions can be a
significant source of problems limiting the
effective management of water.
Increased public awareness of the connection between groundwater and surface
water is essential. In recognition of our stewardship role with respect to our state's
natural resources, we must better understand and manage the very real connection
between the use of those resources while balancing the right of a beneficial,
consumptive use of those resources.
A comprehensive, independent hydrologic study should be undertaken to identify how
the two systems are related and better understand how to effectively manage the two.
Any such study should also include a determination of the quantity and the quality of
groundwater, including levels of contamination, the maximum annual yields of
aquifers, the impact of precipitation levels, the impact of pumping groundwater on the
appropriation of surface water, and the effect of the depletion of surface water on
groundwater. Long-term hydrological studies are also needed to predict impacts on
use and recharge.
The OCWP Water Town Hall in May 2010
included discussion of conjunctive water
management in Oklahoma.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 2
Coordinating management of groundwater and surface water raises concerns about
private property rights. In developing new policies for the coordinated management of
surface water and groundwater, the rights and needs of private property owners,
municipalities, and water districts must be balanced with the need for additional
regulation in this area.
One approach to a coordinated management system is the development of regional
basin organizations to monitor and manage groundwater resources. In preserving
surface water resources, more reservoirs could be constructed for storage
opportunities to reduce the need for groundwater withdrawal and increase
groundwater recharge. In developing a local management system it should be
recognized that any interactive management system is appropriate to each region and
may not be necessary statewide. Incentives should be available to private property
owners to encourage participation in any coordinated management system.
This technical memorandum (TM) provides a summary of conjunctive water management
activities in Oklahoma and other selected states. This information is intended to support
further consideration of processes to evaluate and prioritize any possible areas where
further investigations (both hydrological and administrative) may need to occur in
Oklahoma.
A definition of conjunctive water management is provided so that the reader has an
understanding of the term and its use in this TM. Conjunctive water use is also a term
used to describe conjunctive water management and the terms for the purposes of this
TM are considered equivalent. Conjunctive water management is the management of
hydraulically connected surface water and groundwater resources such that the total
benefits of integrated management exceed the sum of the benefits that would result from
an independent management of each water resource. Conjunctive management may be
for one or more of the following purposes:
 Maximize beneficial use of water
 Reduce or prevent adverse effects of using a source
 Provide a sustainable and reliable water supply
 Protect environmental water supplies in the surface water system
 Protect spring flows discharging from an aquifer
 Protect senior water rights
 Use an aquifer for storage of surplus surface water and subsequent use (often
referred to as Aquifer Storage and Recovery or ASR)
There are multiple conjunctive management definitions and certainly other possible
purposes, but these are the major uses that have been identified in a survey of other
states. As there are multiple definitions of conjunctive management, the OWRB may want
to consider adopting or developing an Oklahoma specific-definition. Examples of
definitions used in other states and other contexts are provided in the Appendix to this TM.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 3
As indicated in the Town Hall report excerpt above, Town Hall participants recognized the
ongoing interactions between surface and groundwater resources in Oklahoma, but did
not draw firm conclusions regarding management practices and administration of
supplies. A summary of the conjunctive management practices of several other plains and
western states is provided below.
Conjunctive Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
To provide background information for continued
dialogue, several other plains and western states
were surveyed regarding their conjunctive
management practices. Clearly, the physical and
administrative aspects of water resources are not
alike in any two states. However, this survey of
conjunctive management practices provides
foundational information for consideration in
dialogue regarding current and future conjunctive
use and management of Oklahoma's water
resources.
States were selected for surveys based in part on
their proximity to Oklahoma and relative similarity in
hydrologic conditions, but also to document a broad
range of approaches taken by other states.
Oklahoma's current practices are briefly documented
below, followed by a synopsis of approaches taken
by the water management authorities in the states of Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon,
Colorado, Utah, and California. Surveys were conducted using publicly-available
information sources augmented by direct communication with several states' water
management agencies. Several other states were evaluated for inclusion in this report
including Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In these states it was found that
conjunctive management was limited to the administration or regulation of wells for the
benefit of senior surface water rights, and therefore not discussed in detail in this report.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma water law requires any person who uses groundwater or water
from a stream, lake, or pond in Oklahoma for agricultural, industrial, public
water supply, and other non-domestic purposes to obtain a permit from the
OWRB. The water flowing in a stream is considered public water and can be
used by any person who obtains a permit for a non-domestic use. The permit
would be senior to permits issued on the stream at a later time. This is referred to as the
Doctrine of Prior Appropriation (first in time, first in right) that is used by many states in the
west to allocate and administer water rights.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 4
Groundwater is not considered public water in Oklahoma but belongs to the land surface
owner. A permit is required for any non-domestic use. Oklahoma law requires that the
OWRB issue the permit based on the maximum annual yield. The maximum annual yield is
based on a study of the groundwater basin that assumes a useful aquifer life of at least
20 years. The maximum annual yield is divided into an "equal proportionate share" for
each acre of land over the groundwater basin. If a groundwater basin has not been
studied yet, then the law provides for a temporary permit to be issued based in the
amount of 2 acre-feet (AF) per acre each year. Once an aquifer's maximum annual yield is
determined, the permit will be converted to a regular permit and the authorized amount
will be adjusted to the equal proportionate share.
With the exception of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer system, conjunctive management of
supplies is not mandated under Oklahoma water law. Among other issues, many Town Hall
participants voiced concerns over the potential of conjunctive management to infringe
upon property rights and existing water permits. These issues are now being highlighted as
OWRB implements the legislative directives of Senate Bill 288 in the Arbuckle-Simpson
basin. Conjunctive management in other regions and states (permitting, administration,
and enforcement) has in many cases been driven by conflicts between holders of water
rights or permits for supplies that were impacted by others' withdrawals from hydraulically
connected sources.
Clearly, the separate treatment of surface water and groundwater is not considered a form
of conjunctive management, even though the water resources may be hydraulically
connected and the uses of each can affect the other water resource. In other words, the
pumping of groundwater could have an effect on a stream if the aquifer and stream are
hydraulically connected. Likewise, the diversion of surface water could also have an effect
on the aquifer's long-term water supply.
Blaine Aquifer Recharge
Artificial recharge of the Blaine aquifer in Southwestern Oklahoma has been conducted
since the late 1960s. The Blaine aquifer is used for crop irrigation, but not for drinking
water due to high mineral content. Groundwater is obtained from cavities, solution
channels, and fractures in the Blaine formation. The Blaine aquifer experienced significant
decline of water levels due to irrigation withdrawals during the 1950s and 1960s. In
1983, OWRB, the Southwest Water and Soil Conservation District, and other partners
started the Blaine Gypsum Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project. At the time, the
district had 45 project recharge wells already in use, though the effectiveness of these
wells was not well studied. The project constructed and monitored five recharge wells. The
monitoring found that each recharge well could provide on average about half the water
supply used by an irrigation well (70 AF). The recharge wells provided a short-term
increase in water quality, where the Blaine aquifer is typically of poor quality. Long-term
effects on water quality were not studied. The district had constructed about 70 recharge
wells as of 1997.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 5
Artificial Recharge Legislative Work Group
In 2009 and 2010, the OCWP Aquifer Recharge Workgroup evaluated opportunities for
intentional conjunctive use in Oklahoma in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 1410 (2008).
The workgroup evaluated areas where surface water could be intentionally recharged into
aquifer formations, stored in those aquifers, then subsequently withdrawn for use as
supply and demand conditions warrant. The findings of that workgroup's efforts are
documented in the Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project Site Evaluation Final Report (OWRB
2010).
The OCWP Aquifer Recharge Workgroup concluded that intentional recharge and
conjunctive use has the potential to help increase the reliability of supplies in many areas,
and recommended a short-list of sites in Oklahoma for a possible future recharge
demonstration project.
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer
Oklahoma implemented a conjunctive water management policy associated with
legislation passed in 2003 (SB288). This legislation essentially imposed a moratorium on
any temporary permits to use groundwater for municipal or public water supply use
outside of any county that overlays in whole or in part a sensitive sole source groundwater
basin. This moratorium was to remain in effect until the OWRB conducts and completes a
hydrological study and approves a maximum annual yield that will ensure that any permit
for the removal of water from such a basin or subbasin will not reduce the natural flow of
water from springs or streams emanating from said basin or subbasin (SB288 2003).
SB288 also requires that a permit for the use of groundwater within the basin will not
likely degrade or interfere with springs or streams emanating from the aquifer. Currently,
this legislation has been applied to the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer, which is the only aquifer
in Oklahoma that has been declared a sole source groundwater basin.
The OWRB initiated a comprehensive study of the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer in 2003 in
cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Oklahoma State University, and the University of Oklahoma. The study was completed in
December 2009 when the final report was submitted to the BOR. The study included the
development and calibration of a digital groundwater flow model to predict the impact of
various well pumping scenarios on stream and spring flow. The OWRB is using the study
results and model to develop a maximum annual yield that will not reduce the flow of
springs and streams emanating from the aquifer (Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study,
December 2009). The OWRB has established a website to provide a significant amount of
information about the study (http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/groundwater/
arbuckle_simpson/arbuckle_study.php#288).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 6
Texas
Texas does not directly have a conjunctive water management program for
surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater. It has been directed
by statute that the two state water management agencies—the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB)—be responsible for different areas of water resources in the
state. The TCEQ is responsible for the permitting of the use of surface water
and is required to consider the effects of a surface water application on
groundwater and groundwater recharge (Texas Water Code § 11.151).
In Texas, the right to use groundwater by the overlying land owner has long been
recognized as the "rule of capture" by a Texas Supreme Court case (Houston and Texas
Central Railroad Co. vs. East, 81 S.W. 279, Tex. 1904). This decision resulted in the
growth of groundwater use without any regulation or management until 1949, when the
Texas Legislature passed legislation to establish underground water reservoirs and for
creating groundwater conservation districts. Additional legislation was passed over the
years dealing with the management of groundwater. For example, a groundwater
conservation district was given the authority to permit the use of groundwater in its
district. Significant changes occurred in 2001, in SB2, where the TWDB was given the
responsibility to create groundwater management areas. As a result, the TWDB
established 16 groundwater management areas that encompassed the entire state for the
purpose of joint planning among groundwater conservation districts within a management
area (Mace et al. 2008).
In 2005, in House Bill (HB) 1763, the Legislature mandated joint planning among
groundwater conservation districts within a groundwater management area. The
groundwater conservation districts are required to meet at least annually to conduct joint
planning and to review groundwater management plans and accomplishments in the
groundwater management area. A key part of the joint planning is determining "desired
future conditions" that are used to calculate "managed available groundwater" values by
the TWDB. These conditions and values are used for regional water plans, groundwater
management plans, and permitting (Mace et al. 2008).
Desired future conditions are the desired, quantified conditions of groundwater resources
such as water levels, water quality, spring flows, or volumes at a specified time or times in
the future or in perpetuity. The groundwater conservation districts can choose to manage
their groundwater resources in such a way as to protect spring flow and baseflow to
streams (Mace et al. 2007). Once the groundwater conservation districts establish the
desired future conditions, they are required to forward this to the TWDB, who uses
groundwater availability models to determine "managed available groundwater." The
districts are required to report the managed available groundwater in their groundwater
management plans and to ensure that their groundwater plans contain goals and
objectives consistent with achieving the desired future conditions. The districts are
required to permit the use of groundwater, to the extent possible, up to the managed
available groundwater (Mace et al. 2008).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 7
There is one example in Texas where the interaction of groundwater and surface water
has been evaluated. This is the Edwards Aquifer, where spring discharges flow into the
Guadalupe River. A federal court order has been issued to protect endangered species in
the river from excessive groundwater pumping. In 2005, the TWDB and TCEQ used
groundwater and surface water models to evaluate different management scenarios
impacting both the aquifer and the river (Mace et al. 2007).
Kansas
Kansas has implemented conjunctive water management of surface water and
hydraulically connected groundwater in several ways, including protection of
senior water rights and protecting streamflows.
The Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR) conjunctively regulates surface water
rights and groundwater rights that appropriate water from a common source. A priority
number is assigned to each water right based on its date of use. A junior groundwater
right may be curtailed if it is impairing a senior surface right or a minimum desirable
streamflow. In practice, this is done only if such curtailment would not constitute a futile
call; that is, curtailing the junior water right would not result in a significant improvement
in water availability to a senior surface water right or a minimum desired streamflow gage
(Graves 2010).
When considering applications for water appropriation, the Kansas DWR generally limits
appropriations to the safe yield of a stream or aquifer. Safe yield means the long-term
sustainable yield of the source of supply, including hydraulically connected surface water
and groundwater (Kansas Administrative Regulations 5-1-1).
The Kansas Chief Engineer, Director of DWR, has authority under the Groundwater
Management District Act (K.S.A. 82a-1020 through 1040) to establish "Intensive
Groundwater Use Control Areas" (IGUCAs) when certain problems exist and when
corrective controls are necessary to protect the public interest. A number of IGUCAs have
been established in Kansas, most for the purpose of managing a groundwater source of
supply to many wells. A notable exception is the Walnut Creek IGUCA in south-central
Kansas that was established to address declining groundwater levels that in turn had
reduced streamflows. The intent of the IGUCA is to allow the aquifer to recharge to a level
where water levels are at or above the streambed elevation.
The key provisions of the order establishing the Walnut Creek IGUCA are as follows:
 Closed the area to further appropriations
 Required the installation of flow meters
 Required water users to file annual water use reports no later than March 1
 Set 5-year allocations
 Set the long-term sustainable yield at approximately 22,700 acre-feet per year (AFY)
 Used the period of 1985 to 1990 to establish the historical use allocated to senior
irrigation rights, with priorities prior to or equal to October 1, 1965
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 8
 Junior irrigation water rights with priorities junior to October 1, 1965 are assigned the
remaining amount of the sustainable yield of 22,700 AF; about 44 percent of the
seniors' allocations
The Chief Engineer may evaluate the information collected at 5-year intervals and make
adjustments to the corrective controls if needed to achieve the goals of the IGUCA (Walnut
Creek IGUCA).
Nebraska
Nebraska has a joint permitting process for surface water and groundwater,
with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitting the
use of surface water using the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation for regulating
surface water rights. Groundwater is permitted by local Natural Resource
Districts (NRDs) and the use of groundwater is controlled by the NRDs with
annual pumping allocations established for irrigation wells in a specific NRD. This joint
permitting process led to some conflicts resulting from interstate litigation on the
Republican River Compact and from other basins being over appropriated. In 2004,
Legislative Bill (LB) 962 was adopted by the Nebraska Legislature and reflects the
recognition that the state's water resources and use required more complex management.
The result is an Integrated Management Process (IMP) that called for a proactive
approach to management of the state's hydraulically connected groundwater and surface
water, providing for the economic viability, social and environmental health, safety, and
welfare of the river basin (Water Matters November 2009).
Under LB962, the DNR was required to make an over-appropriated determination for any
basin meeting specific criteria. The criteria include being subject to an interstate
cooperative agreement between three or more states, declaration by DNR of a moratorium
on the issuance of new surface water appropriations in the basin, and a request by DNR
that each NRD with jurisdiction in the affected basin either 1) close or continue in effect a
previously adopted closure of all or part of a basin to the issuance of additional water well
permits, or 2) temporarily suspend or continue in effect a temporary suspension on the
drilling of new water wells in the area. All of these criteria had to occur prior to July 16,
2004 to be in effect (Water Matters November 2009).
LB962 also required DNR to evaluate all basins annually and designate a basin fully
appropriated when the current uses of surface water and groundwater cause, or will in the
reasonably foreseeable future cause, the surface water supply to be insufficient to sustain
the beneficial purposes for which natural flow, storage, or instream flow appropriations
were granted. A basin may also be deemed fully appropriated if the reduction in
streamflow will cause noncompliance with an interstate compact or decree, other formal
state contracts or agreements, or applicable state or federal laws. Once a basin is
preliminarily determined to be fully appropriated, DNR places a stay on the construction of
all new water wells with the basin (Water Matters November 2009).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 9
When a basin is over appropriated or fully appropriated, the IMP is implemented. This
includes establishing a stakeholder group to consult with the DNR and NRDs providing
feedback and ideas. Goals and objectives are developed to give the IMP direction. An IMP
may include both regulatory and non-regulatory action items. A fully appropriated
determination does necessarily mean that existing users need to be regulated. An over
appropriated area or basin is required to develop an incremental plan to balance water
uses and supplies for an ultimate return to a fully appropriated level of uses.
An important component to the IMP is developing an understanding of the Basin Water
Supply (BWS) and the uses of that supply. The BWS is the streamflow that would occur
without the depletions caused by water uses in the basin. The BWS may need to be
adjusted for obligations that require a portion of the streamflow to flow downstream.
These obligations could be due to an interstate river compact or a river recovery plan
resulting from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The remaining water supply, referred to
as the Available Water Supply (AWS), is compared with depletions from existing uses to
determine if a reduction in water use is necessary to balance depletions with the AWS. The
IMP will develop goals and objectives and specific regulatory controls to carry them out
(Water Matters March 2010).
Oregon
Oregon has implemented conjunctive management of hydraulically
connected groundwater and surface water in order to protect senior water
rights and minimum streamflows. The Oregon Department of Water
Resources (ODWR) has promulgated rules to implement the conjunctive
management regulations and is published as the Oregon Administrative
Rules (OARs). The Division 9 Rules are titled "Groundwater Interference with
Surface Water" and apply to proposed and existing wells (OARs, Water Resources
Department, Division 9 Rules).
The Division 9 Rules apply to hydraulically connected groundwater and surface water
where there is the potential for substantial interference with surface water supplies. The
ODWR must make the determination that the groundwater is hydraulically connected. All
wells within one-quarter mile of a stream are presumed to be hydraulically connected.
All wells that produce water from a hydraulically connected aquifer shall be assumed to
have the potential to cause substantial interference with the surface water source, if the
existing or proposed groundwater appropriation is within one of the following categories:
1. The point of appropriation is within a horizontal distance less than one-quarter mile
from the stream; or
2. The rate of appropriation is greater than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) if the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream; or
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 10
3. The rate of appropriation is greater than 1 percent of the pertinent adopted minimum
perennial streamflow or instream water right with a senior priority date, or if the
discharge that is equaled or exceeded 80 percent of the time and the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream; or
4. The groundwater pumping, if continued for a period of 30 days, would result in a
stream depletion greater than 25 percent of the rate of appropriation, if the point of
appropriation is less than 1 mile from the stream.
According to Barry Norris, Acting Director of Water Rights Division, ODWR, the above rules
were developed by a rules advisory committee that was made up of various interest
groups. The rules are therefore not necessarily scientifically based. Mr. Norris further
stated that there are areas in Oregon where ODWR routinely regulates junior priority wells
in favor of surface water rights or instream flows every summer (Norris 2010a).
Oregon has initiated a study in the Umatilla River basin to identify recharge areas where
water can be diverted and recharged into the underlying aquifer to offset the impacts of
existing well pumping. The water is diverted in the non-irrigation season or periods of high
streamflow when there is no demand for the water. The stream accretions from the
recharge would be used to offset the stream depletions from well pumping and thereby
minimize the amount well regulation that would be needed to protect senior water rights
(Norris 2010b).
Colorado
Colorado was one of the earlier states to implement conjunctive management of
hydraulically connected groundwater and surface water. The purpose of the
initial conjunctive management was to protect senior surface water rights while
maximizing beneficial use of water. This has expanded over time to include
artificial recharge of alluvial aquifers to offset the stream and aquifer depletions
caused by well pumping.
Colorado rewrote its water laws in 1969 to address complaints by senior surface water
rights that uncontrolled irrigation well development in the dry period of 1950 to 1963 had
caused stream depletions that were reducing the supply to senior surface water rights on
two major streams in eastern Colorado. These included the South Platte River with over
1,000,000 acres irrigated by surface and groundwater, and the Arkansas River with over
350,000 acres irrigated by surface water and groundwater.
The Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (Article 92 of Title 37 of
the Colorado Revised Statutes) required for the first time that all tributary wells (wells that
pump groundwater hydraulically connected to a stream or its alluvial aquifer) file for
adjudication of the well in the Division Water Court (created by the Act) by July 1, 1972.
The well would be assigned a priority based on the date of construction and placed into an
integrated tabulation of all tributary water rights both surface water and groundwater.
Surface water rights have been continuously adjudicated since the late 1880s and the
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 11
adjudicated well would be integrated with these water rights. Since most streams in
Colorado are over appropriated as a result of demands (calls) by senior surface water
rights dating to the later part of the 1800s, wells constructed in the 1950s and 1960s
would be very junior and not in priority, except in high stream flow conditions during the
peak of the snowmelt runoff season or during periods of high precipitation.
The Act required the State Engineer, who is also the Director of the DWR, to administer the
wells once adjudicated and to promulgate rules for the administration of the wells with the
recognition of the value of the wells to maximize the beneficial use of water but also
honoring the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
The Act created a new term in Colorado water law, Plan for Augmentation, that was
intended to assist groundwater users and the State Engineer with a mechanism to allow
junior alluvial wells to pump. A plan for augmentation is defined as a "a detailed program
which may be temporary or perpetual in duration, to increase the supply of water available
for beneficial use in a basin by the development of new or alternate points of diversion, by
a pooling of water resources, by water exchange projects, by providing substitute supplies
of water, by the development of new sources of water, or by any other appropriate means"
(CRS 37-92-103 (9)). The plans for augmentation that have been adjudicated include
wells pumping as alternate points of diversion to senior surface water rights, the release
of reservoir water to offset depletions caused by well pumping, the recharge of alluvial
aquifers using surface water available at times of no call (demand) to provide a
streamflow accretion credit to offset well pumping depletions, the use of waters imported
from another basin including return flows from an initial use such as municipal, and other
creative plans.
The key purpose of a plan for augmentation is to provide water at times the well depletion
is affecting a stream when the priority of the well is junior to the call. This is intended to
overcome the argument of well owners that curtailment of the well pumping did not
necessarily provide immediate relief to a senior call. In Colorado, a well cannot pump in an
over-appropriated basin unless a plan for augmentation is in place to offset delayed
depletions that will occur in the future at times when a call is on. If there is no call senior
to a well's priority, augmentation is not required. The State Engineer allows an exception
for a well within 100 feet of the stream that does not have a delayed depletion. This is
considered the same as a surface water diversion that can be administered in priority, and
a plan for augmentation is not required (Simpson 2006).
In the 1970s, the State Engineer advocated the use of existing canals on the South Platte
River to divert water at times of no call and outside the irrigation season into recharge
basins constructed for this purpose. Currently over 200,000 AF of water is recharged in an
average runoff year, and much less in a drought year. This recharged groundwater
provides stream accretions that are credited to various organizations implementing the
recharge programs and are used to offset well depletions in various plans for
augmentation (Simpson 2006).
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 12
In the Arkansas River basin, recharge projects are not feasible since there is a year-round
demand for water related to either senior water rights or the Arkansas River Compact
approved in 1948. The Compact results in a demand for water with a priority of 1948
outside of the irrigation season.
During the severe drought of 2000 to 2006 in Colorado, some plans for augmentation
were not able to operate due to a lack of adequate water for augmentation because the
call period on the South Platte River increased from about 4 months per year to year-round.
This basically increased the amount of water needed by a factor of 3 and several
plans ceased to operate. As a result, about 2,000 irrigation wells were shut down by the
State Engineer in 2006 and about 100,000 acres dried up. These wells have not been
able to operate since that time due to the inability of irrigation interests to acquire
reasonably priced augmentation water. This has in large part been caused by increased
competition for water supplies in the basin resulting from rapid growth of the Front Range
population (Simpson 2006).
Utah
The State of Utah has included in its State Water Plan a section on "Conjunctive
Management of Surface and Groundwater in Utah." This section is a
comprehensive treatment of conjunctive management of water, with emphasis
on ASR. The elements of conjunctive water management identified in the plan
are:
 Use more surface water and less groundwater when surface water is available during
wet periods. (Wet periods include annual spring snowmelt runoff and consecutive
years of above normal precipitation.)
 Store unused surface water above ground and underground during dry periods.
 Take water out of surface and groundwater storage during dry periods. (Dry periods
include annual summer months and consecutive years of below-normal precipitation.)
 Use more groundwater during dry periods when insufficient surface water is available
in streams and reservoirs.
The report states that although conjunctive management projects do not always involve
storage of excess surface water underground, intentionally recharging aquifers when
water is available and recovering it when needed is a common and critical element of
most conjunctive management projects (Utah State Water Plan 2005).
The Utah State Engineer's Office has taken actions to address areas of declining
groundwater levels and has developed Groundwater Management Plans for 12 designated
areas of the state. The intent of these plans is to protect existing water rights, provide for
maximum beneficial use of water resources, and address other issues unique to a
particular groundwater basin. The Groundwater Management Plan typically includes
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 13
comparisons of the estimated natural recharge into the groundwater basin to natural
discharge and human withdrawals out of the basin. Groundwater basins with approved
water rights that exceed the amount of natural recharge physically available are
considered over-appropriated and are closed to new appropriations. About 27 percent of
Utah is closed to new appropriations. The closed area is along the Wasatch Front, the area
of high population in Utah (Utah State Water Plan 2005).
ASR projects most commonly include the use of spreading basins in the primary recharge
areas above the target aquifer and later withdrawing the water from locations in the
aquifer influenced by the recharge. The best locations for surface water spreading include
river deltas and at the mouth of the canyons near a water source of sufficient size. ASR
projects are subject to the regulatory requirements of the Groundwater Recharge and
Recovery Act adopted in 1991. The act requires the proponents of a project to obtain
permits for recharge of water and permits for the recovery of the water (Utah State Water
Plan 2005).
California
California is somewhat similar to Nebraska in that at the state agency level, only
the allocation and use of surface water is regulated by the state. In California,
this is accomplished by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
which is within the California Environmental Protection Agency. The SWRCB's
role is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the state while
allocating those waters to achieve optimum balance of beneficial uses.
Groundwater management and regulation, including permitting of water wells, is
a local function carried out by counties, municipalities, or water districts. Efforts
to regulate groundwater at the state level have been discouraged by the
Legislature several times in recent history.
However, the California State Water Plan does describe how conjunctive management of
water resources can be accomplished and the role the state can play in this effort. In
Chapter 8, "Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage," California State Water
Plan (Update 2009), California Department of Water Resources (CDWR),conjunctive
management is defined as the coordinated and planned use and management of both
surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of
water supplies in a region to meet various management objectives. One of the roles and
goals of the state through the CDWR is to strive for sustainable and reliable groundwater
supplies throughout the state. Groundwater plays an important role in meeting the water
needs of its water users by providing over 35 percent of the water demand or about
15 million AF of pumping per year. Conjunctive management is emerging as one of the
major water resources management tools to achieve this goal.
An example provided is the recharge of an aquifer with surface water when additional
surface supplies are available and affordable. A sustainable conjunctive management
program consists of several components that include investigating the groundwater
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 14
aquifer characteristics, estimating surface water and groundwater responses, and
appropriate monitoring of groundwater level and quality. The state's role includes
providing funding through grants and loans as well as technical assistance (California
State Water Plan, Update 2009, Chapter 8).
At the end of Chapter 8, fourteen recommendations are provided to improve conjunctive
management and groundwater storage in California that will not be restated in this report
but should be reviewed for applicability to future Oklahoma conjunctive water
management policy and actions.
Summary
As can be seen from the discussion above for the eight states, conjunctive management
of surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater varies significantly, ranging
from minimal implementation to very active programs. Conjunctive management is a
relatively recent activity often resulting from problems or conflicts becoming evident as
uses of the water resources in a river basin start to experience limitations or conflicts
resulting from some of the following:
 Declining streamflow as a result of groundwater uses causing depletions
 Declining groundwater levels resulting from excessive pumping
 Complaints by those with vested water rights or permits that junior diverters are
causing them injury (e.g., senior surface water rights impacted by groundwater
pumping)
 Interstate litigation between states over the administration of an interstate river
compact
 Demands for instream flows to address the needs of endangered species dependent
on the streamflow and imposed as a result of the federal ESA
 Desires for instream flows to provide for the needs of the environment or recreation
Often it has been specific legislation as identified for Oklahoma (SB288, 2003), Colorado
(Water Rights Determination and Administration Act, 1969) and Nebraska (LB962, 2004)
that resulted in a conjunctive water management program. The fact that the legislature of
a state determines conjunctive management to be an important public water policy makes
it even more enforceable by the state water agencies given the responsibility to implement
the legislation.
Table 1 provides a brief synopsis of some of the key features of conjunctive management
in the surveyed states.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 15
Table 1—Comparison of Surveyed States' Conjunctive Use Programs
Conjunctive Management
Criteria by State
Conjunctive Management is
not implemented in majority
of state or is limited to areas
with close proximity to a
stream
    
Conjunctive Management is
implemented in majority of
state
  
Groundwater and Surface
Water are permitted under
separate laws
   
Groundwater and Surface
Water are permitted under
the same laws
   
State agency has authority to
regulate wells for protection
of Senior
Surface Water Rights
   
Aquifer storage and recovery
is encouraged and
implemented
  
Conjunctive Management
includes efforts to provide for
sustainability of water
resources in the basin
 
As Oklahoma considers potential future conjunctive water management activities, it will be
important to have not only the support of water users but also the Legislature as programs
are implemented. Future dialogue could include discussion of options for conjunctive
management that include status quo methods and protocol, site-specific approaches such
as those taken for the Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer (SB288), and statewide approaches. Key
issues will include the continued protection of property rights while providing reliable water
supplies to Oklahoma's water users.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 16
References
Blomquist, William A., Heikkila, Tanya A. and Schlager, Edella. (2001). Institutions and
Conjunctive Water Management Among Three Western States. Natural Resources Journal,
Vol. 41, No. 3. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=290745
Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 92 of Title 37, Water Rights Determination and
Administration.
Czarnecki, John B., Clark, Brian R., and Stanton, Gregory P. (2003). Conjunctive-Use
Optimization Model of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer of Southeastern
Arkansas. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4233.
Gershon, Michael A. (2003, July/August). The Recent Evolution of Texas Water Policy and
Law. Southwest Hydrology. Pages 24-25.
Glennon, Robert. (2003, July/August). High and Dry in the West: The Failure to Integrate
Management of Ground- and Surface-Water Resources. Southwest Hydrology.
Pages 12-13.
Graves, P. (2010, August 5). Kansas Division of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Idaho Administrative Code. Rules for Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground
Water Resources. Section 37.03.11.
Jehangir, Waqar A., Qureshi, Asad Sarwar, Ali, Nazim. (2002). Conjunctive Water
Management in the Rechna Doab: An Overview of Resources and Issues. Working Paper
48, Pakistan Country Series No. 13. International Water Management Institute.
Mace, R.E.; Austin, B.; Angle, E.S.; Batchelder, R. (2007, June). Texas Water Development
Board. "Surface Water and Groundwater-Together Again?". Eighth Annual Changing Face of
Water Rights in Texas, Texas Water Bar.
Mace, R.E.; Petrossian, Bradley, R.; Mullican, W. F.; Christian, L. (2008, May). Texas Water
Development Board. "A Streetcar Named Desired Future Conditions: The New
Groundwater Availability for Texas (Revised)". The Changing Face of Water Rights in Texas
2008, Texas Water Bar.
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. (2009, November). "The Integrated
Management Planning Process."Water Matters.
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. (2010, March). "Integrated Water
Management and the Basin Water Supply."Water Matters.
Norris, B. (2010a, July 6). Oregon Department of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Norris, B. (2010b, July 13). Oregon Department of Water Resources, Personal
Communication.
Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Water Resources, Division 9, Groundwater
Interference with Surface Water.
Conjunctive Water Management in Oklahoma
and Other States
A 17
Osborn, Noel I. (2009, December). Arbuckle-Simpson Hydrology Study. Final Report to the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
OWRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). (2010, June). Aquifer Recharge Pilot Project
Site Evaluation Final Report.
Simpson, H. (2006, September). Colorado State Engineer, "History of Well Regulation,
South Platte River Basin."
Utah Division of Water Resources. (2005, July). Conjunctive Management of Surface and
Ground Water in Utah. Utah State Water Plan. Available at
http://www.water.utah.gov/waterplan
Utah State Water Plan. (2005, July). Division of Water Resources, "Conjunctive
Management of Surface and Groundwater in Utah."
Walnut Creek IGUCA, Kansas Department of Agriculture,
http://www.ksda.gov/appropriations/content/291/cid/1355
Water, Final Report, Oklahoma Academy. (2010, May). Town Hall Meeting.
A A-1
Appendix A
Alternate Definitions of Conjunctive
Management
Some examples of various definitions are provided below:
 "Conjunctive water use usually involves institutional agreements where an existing
groundwater user will curtail extractions during wet years in favor of a surface water
supply—thereby allowing the aquifer to naturally replenish" (California Water Plan).
 "Conjunctive water management is the use of multiple water resources (surface water
and groundwater) within a basin so that at the time of irrigation, adequate water of
acceptable quality is available at the farm" (Jehangir et al. 2002).
 "Conjunctive water management involves the coordinated use of ground and surface
water supplies. It aims to enhance overall water supplies and guard against drought"
(Blomquist et al. 2001).
 "Conjunctive management is "the coordinated and combined use of surface water and
ground water to better manage water supplies in order to meet growing needs" (Utah
Division of Water Resources 2005).
 "In Texas, the concept of conjunctive use was defined by the Legislature as 'the
combined use of groundwater and surface water sources that optimizes the beneficial
characteristics of each source'" (Gershon 2003).
 "In Idaho, conjunctive management is defined as the 'legal and hydrologic integration
of administration of the diversion and use of water under water rights from surface
and ground water sources, including areas having a common ground water supply'"
(Idaho Administrative Code).
 "Conjunctive use involves the withdrawal of both ground water and surface water.
Conjunctive-use optimization modeling is a technique that can be used to determine
maximum withdrawal rates from both surface water and ground water while meeting
constraints with respect to water levels and streamflow" (Czarnecki et al. 2003).
 "Conjunctive management aims to coordinate ground-and surface waters in order to
obtain the maximum economic benefits from both resources" (Glennon 2003).